DEVI DAYAL Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Devi Dyal was appointed as Constable in Ambala District on 6.12.1965. He underwent recruitment training course conducted from 5.1.1966 to 15.10.1966 in which he stood first in the Police Practical Work and second in all-round performance. Petitioner applied for Clerical Cadre in November, 1966 and he was appointed as Executive Clerk in 1967 by the D.I.G. Ambala Range. Petitioner was subsequently promoted as Head Constable on 9.9.1970 and was posted as such in the Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Hissar. The post of A.S.I. Language Stenographer in C.I.D., Haryana was advertised vide wireiess Message No. 15343- 50/3.3 dated 24.8.1971. Petitioner applied for the said post through proper channel and the Inspector General of Police (hereinafter referred to as IGP) vide letter dated 6.10.1971 directed the D.I.G./CID to judge the suitability of the petitioner. Petitioner qualified for the said post and as a consequence thereof he was appointed as A.S.I. Language Stenographer, petitioner joined as such in the Office of the D.I..G/CID, Gurgaon on 20.1.1972. Petitioner though was paid his pay and allowances, yet he was denied Stenography allowance for which he made a number of representations and ultimately it was on 13.7.1977 that he was allowed Stenography allowance with effect from 1.7.1977. Being dissatisfied, he again represented for the grant of Stenography allowance with effect from 20.1.1972, the date of his joining as A.S.I. Language Stenographer. This request of petitioner was also accepted and he was allowed arrears with effect from 20.1.1972 to 1.7.1977 which were paid to him on 23.2.1981. Petitioner was also allowed to cross Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.1.1979. Since petitioner was not being confirmed as A.S.I. Language Stenographer to which he was otherwise entitled, after completing three years, he, per force, applied for being sent on deputation to Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (for short S.I.B.) but his prayer was declined and conveyed to him by the D.I.G./CID, Haryana on 17.2.1978. On 15.3.1979, petitioner was sent on deputation to S.I.B. as Head Constable without his consent but he was allowed to join as J.I.O.(I) which is equivalent to the post of A.S.I. Petitioner submitted a number of representations to the respondent for his promotion as A.S.I, as according to him, person Junior to him, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar Bharara, respondent No. 4 was appointed as A.S.I. Language Stenographer in the year 1977 and was later regularised after obtaining "No Objection Certificate" from Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Since approval is not being sought in the case of the petitioner, he has, through this writ, petition, prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent to promote him with effect from the date his junior (respondent No. 4) was promoted.

(2.) respondents No. 1 to 3, in reply to the claim of the petitioner, have stated that the appointment of A.S.I. Language Stenographers is only made by direct recruitment as provided in Rule 12.3-A of Punjab Police Rules (for short the Rules) and no official can be appointed as A.S.I. Language Stenographer except by way of direct recruitment. According to the respondents, there was shortage of Language Stenographers and for that matter persons from executive cadre of the police department were taken on deputation. Petitioner was not absorbed as A.S.I. Language Stenographer and approval was not sought from the Board because the petitioner was only a Matriculate and was more than 27 years of age whereas the relevant rule prescribed the minimum educational qualificatin as "Intermediate" and the maximum age of 27 years. Although a request had been made to the IGR for relaxation in the case of the petitioner under Rule 12.6(2) of the ibid Rules, yet the same was not done. Regarding the allegation of appointment and promotion of person junior to the petitioner, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar Bharara, respondent No. 4, respondents No. 1 to 3 have stated that it was None on the recommendation of the Board. Respondent No. 4 has not filed any reply.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that this writ petition deserves to succeed. Petitioner was taken on deputation after he had qualified the test. He was also found fit and allowed to cross Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.1.1979. In the case of the petitioner, although IGR was requested to relax the condition, yet the same was not done as the respondents were of the view that approval of the Board is required for the purpose. As a matter of fact such an approval by the Board was not required in view of the clarification given by the Board vide its letter No. 1/12/2/R-XX XXX XXX 91/1918 dated 11.9.1991 which inter alia provided that approval of the Board is not required in the case of persons appointed as Language Stenographers from within the Department vide order dated 12.11.1991, 6 Language Stenographers who were taken on deputation, were regularised as A.S.Is. The only condition imposed in their case was that they must qualify Intermediate School Course before their confirmation in the rank of A.S.I. Thus, in view of the clarification, approval of the Board was not required to be obtained in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner who had worked for such a long time as language Stenographer was entitled to be regularised as A.S.I. Language Stenographer as was one in the case of others.